This page has been developed to allow "free flowing" thought on the topic of Condtion Rating - the hows , the whys and the wherefores!
Please refer to the detailed discussion at condition assessment systems

As a starter;
1 Why is the NSW Government specifying a specific Condition Rating scheme?

The NSW government seems to be trying to cover a number of things with 1 measure - a condition rating (the current debate shows this may not be possible).

The NSW gov (like other regulators) is interested in each Council's sustainability. One way to measure this (over time - using a KPI) is to look at the condition of assets (in the true condition sense) and compare this over time. They are not concerned whether you keep all your assets at 1, 2 or 3 as long as you sustain your assets. What they will pick up (and I think it is worthwhile) over time is are we "keeping our head above water". If we show (either from our forecasted position or our actual performance) that over time our assets are degrading (say on average moving from 3s to 4 or 5s) we (they) should be concerned. I am assuming this is the logic behind current government thinking!

2 How does Condition fit into the overall scheme?

However as councils we need to decide what we will spend our limited budgets on to get the best results (say to remain sustainable). We need to monitor and control this over time (KPIs). Our expenditure decisions are becoming more and more complicated, but we do currently (need to) take into account at least the following factors;
1 Condition (Condition Rating)
2 Risk associated with the asset (this involves probability and consequence of failure - Risk Rating)
3 Service Priority (Service Rating)
(And perhaps other factors)
However these are all interrelated. We can combine these all into 1 BIG number or calculate the various numbers and combine them in some way to give us a "budget expenditure priority".